Most members of Parliament will never have a better job than the one they have now, and you can count on them to pursue whatever course of action allows them to keep it.

As H.L. Mencken put it: “If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.”

Our system — the Westminster system — works because MPs’ pursuit of individual self-interest should lead to the public good, because in order to keep their big paycheques, MPs need to keep on the good side of their constituents.

It is a simple and brutal system. The government is formed by whomever can command the support of a majority of MPs. Every MP who does not support the prime minister plots to bring about his downfall. The wretches in the gallery report to Canadians, who decide how to vote in the next election.

If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner

It doesn’t much matter whether individual MPs or ministers are motivated by higher impulses or craven self-interest, because government MPs live in fear of being thrown out, which forces them to exercise their power judiciously, and opposition MPs are motivated by the desire to get into government, which gives them cause to reveal governing MPs for the scoundrels they are.

But increasingly, the pursuit of self-interest on the part of individual MPs has led them to act more in the interest of their party and less in the interest of their constituents.

These days, the best predictor of an individual MP’s election is the leader’s campaign.

Back when this was a rural country, and everyone got their news from the local paper, an MP’s role in local affairs was a matter of daily conversation.

These days, elections are decided by those who pause briefly once every four years to vote based on a fleeting impression of the leaders gleaned from TV.

Under the influence of American media, Canadians behave as if we have a presidential system, and MPs have come to behave as though their primary function is as servants of the leader, who, unlike them, is known to voters through television appearances.

Prime ministers from Pierre Trudeau onward have taken advantage of their television mandate to centralize power in the Prime Minister’s Office, where they are surrounded by lickspittles and henchmen, who treat MPs like employees.

Stephen Harper has been able to intensify that level of control because he is quick to expel malcontents, and his MPs know he is solely responsible for the existence and success of their party.

Of the 160 Conservative MPs in the House, more than 100 get some kind of stipend from Harper, on top of their $160,200 salary.

From ministers, who get $76,700 plus a car and driver, to parliamentary secretaries, who get $16,000, down to vice-chairs of standing committees, who get $5,700, more than half of the caucus is getting extra money from the taxpayer.

There is too much money at stake for government MPs to defy the prime minister.

And that’s not to mention the sticks. If an MP angers the prime minister, he can stand in the way of pet projects, refuse to send Sen. Mike Duffy to speak at a fundraiser and ultimately, refuse to sign an MP’s nomination papers, which means he will have to go back to selling tractors or making out wills.

Michael Chong, the Ontario Conservative MP for Wellington-Halton Hills, last week tabled a bill that would take that authority away from leaders, and also make it possible for MPs to trigger a leadership review.

That would mean anti-abortion candidates and cranks would sometimes win nominations, and leaders would have to find ways to explain that to voters.

In 1974, Progressive Conservative Leader Robert Stanfield was the first to refuse to sign the papers of a candidate — anti-bilingualism crusader Leonard Jones — signalling firmly that the PCs would stay in the centre. In Alberta last year, Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith failed to fire redneck candidates, which seems to have cost her the election.

But other Westminster systems — Australia, New Zealand and Britain — manage to run elections without giving leaders that power, and they manage to dump leaders in parliamentary caucus votes, as Australian Labor MPs recently did.

Those parliaments have not been debased by creeping presidentialism, as ours has.

Our committee system, which should be where the details of our democracy are hammered out, is now all but ceremonial, with every government bill passed without opposition amendment.

The process of reviewing the financial estimates is a hollow charade. The only meaningful debate happens behind closed doors, in government caucus meetings, where more than half of MPs are getting stipends controlled by the boss.

This has all got worse under this government, but the process started long ago and will continue under the next prime minister. Power, once centralized, is never ceded willingly.

Chong has proposed to wrest some of that power back.

The fact that it is even necessary to contemplate this kind of bill is a sign of how bad things are.